ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2022
The effect of posterior pericardiotomy after thoracic aortic surgery.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Posterior Pericardiotomy and Its Impact on Cardiac Tamponade and Pericardial Effusion after Cardiac Surgery.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative pericardial effusion is common after cardiovascular surgery. We aimed to examine the effectiveness of posterior pericardiotomy in reducing the incidence of postoperative pericardial effusion and postoperative atrial fibrillation after thoracic aortic surgery.
methodsThis study included 201 patients who underwent thoracic aortic open surgery between January 2014 and November 2021. We compared surgical outcomes between patients who underwent posterior pericardiotomy and those who did not.
resultsThe group that did not undergo posterior pericardiotomy had significantly longer mechanical ventilation duration than the group who did, both in the overall (p = 0.005) and in the propensity-matched cohorts (p = 0.001). The lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays were significantly longer in the group that did not undergo posterior pericardiotomy compared to the group that did, both in the overall and in the propensity-matched cohorts. The occurrence of postoperative atrial fibrillation and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups. The amount of pericardial drainage was not significantly lower in the group that underwent posterior pericardiotomy in the overall cohorts (p = 0.09), but the difference was significant in the propensity-matched cohorts (p = 0.04). The amount of mediastinal drainage was significantly lower in the group that underwent posterior pericardiotomy, both in the overall cohorts (< 0.001) and in the propensity-matched cohort (< 0.001). Late pericardial tamponade occurred significantly more frequently in the group that did not undergo posterior pericardiotomy than in the group that did, both in the overall (p = 0.03) and in the propensity-matched cohorts (p = 0.03).
conclusionsPosterior pericardiotomy has no effect on reducing postoperative atrial fibrillation after thoracic aortic surgery. However, posterior pericardiotomy reduced the occurrence of late pericardial tamponade, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and mechanical ventilation duration after surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.